At 9/7/2011 8:00:14 PM, jat93 wrote:Any thoughts on the Republican candidates debate tonight? All the candidates are well spoken tonight and very clearly prepared. Unclear who, if anyone, will emerge as the victor.

Also, I notice that the candidates are ordered on stage based on poll numbers. Poll leaders Perry and Romney get center, Ron Paul and Bachmann closest to the center, and the losers on the edge of the stage.

At 9/7/2011 8:00:14 PM, jat93 wrote:Any thoughts on the Republican candidates debate tonight? All the candidates are well spoken tonight and very clearly prepared. Unclear who, if anyone, will emerge as the victor.

I'm watching it yes. It's annoying to me when the candidates refuse to answer the question they were asked in order to comment on what someone else said. That tells me they don't think very quickly on their feet. The better tactic would have been to answer the question and find a way to include the commentary in the answer, or to save the comment for after the answer.

Paul is being ignored like crazy. Not one question on foreign policy, which should be asked because he differs with almost all the candidates on it. Right now they asked Gngrich about Bernanke and the Fed. If Ron Paul isn't allowed to comment about the Fed, I'll be way pissed. I mean come on, Ron Paul made wanting to end the fed cool to begin with.

At 9/7/2011 8:40:53 PM, jat93 wrote:Paul is being ignored like crazy. Not one question on foreign policy, which should be asked because he differs with almost all the candidates on it. Right now they asked Gngrich about Bernanke and the Fed. If Ron Paul isn't allowed to comment about the Fed, I'll be way pissed. I mean come on, Ron Paul made wanting to end the fed cool to begin with.

Paul's views are predictable. We already know what he will say. He has said it. As far as foreign policies are concerned, I would be more interested in what he feels would be the result of his preferred policies on the rest of the world.

There are just too many candidates on the stage for a real policy debate. The best we can hope for here is to clarify positions.

All post-debate analysts said Bachmann did the worst, failed, and is on her way out the race. She lowered from top tier to second tier. Regardless of whether they're right or not (which they do seem to be on point), it's good that Bachmann is out of Ron Paul's way now.

At 9/7/2011 9:05:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:All post-debate analysts said Bachmann did the worst, failed, and is on her way out the race. She lowered from top tier to second tier. Regardless of whether they're right or not (which they do seem to be on point), it's good that Bachmann is out of Ron Paul's way now.

At 9/7/2011 9:05:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:All post-debate analysts said Bachmann did the worst, failed, and is on her way out the race. She lowered from top tier to second tier. Regardless of whether they're right or not (which they do seem to be on point), it's good that Bachmann is out of Ron Paul's way now.

At 9/7/2011 9:05:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:All post-debate analysts said Bachmann did the worst, failed, and is on her way out the race. She lowered from top tier to second tier. Regardless of whether they're right or not (which they do seem to be on point), it's good that Bachmann is out of Ron Paul's way now.

At 9/7/2011 9:05:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:All post-debate analysts said Bachmann did the worst, failed, and is on her way out the race. She lowered from top tier to second tier. Regardless of whether they're right or not (which they do seem to be on point), it's good that Bachmann is out of Ron Paul's way now.

Point being that it doesn't matter at this point, they will all lose to Obama.

Haha-no. It's pretty clear that Obama's time in office is coming to an end--he knows it, and the GOP knows it. Although I will give it to you that it'll be close: either Obama will lose, or he'll win but JUST barely.

I'm rooting for the former.

Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.
- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus

At 9/7/2011 9:05:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:All post-debate analysts said Bachmann did the worst, failed, and is on her way out the race. She lowered from top tier to second tier. Regardless of whether they're right or not (which they do seem to be on point), it's good that Bachmann is out of Ron Paul's way now.

At 9/7/2011 8:40:53 PM, jat93 wrote:Paul is being ignored like crazy. Not one question on foreign policy, which should be asked because he differs with almost all the candidates on it. Right now they asked Gngrich about Bernanke and the Fed. If Ron Paul isn't allowed to comment about the Fed, I'll be way pissed. I mean come on, Ron Paul made wanting to end the fed cool to begin with.

Paul's views are predictable. We already know what he will say. He has said it.

They're predictable because he hasn't wavered in them for over 30 years. He shouldn't be ignored simply because of his unwavering consistency. Furthermore, the "predictability" applies to most people there as well - Do you think Perry said anything that surprised anyone? I think his views on social security, death penalty, etc. are extremely predictable. Same with Bachmann. They both got a whole lot of more time than Paul did.

As far as foreign policies are concerned, I would be more interested in what he feels would be the result of his preferred policies on the rest of the world.

So then we agree there are questions beyond his "predictability" that deserve to be asked? I mean obviously not everyone has the chance to answer every question but I think the moderators really exhausted the kinds of questions they asked Perry, Romney, and Bachmann. Not so with Paul, and everything indicates that he deserves the same amount of attention (in regards to being a real contender) than at LEAST Bachmann.

By the way, which policies are you referring to? I think he's explained most of them many times, especially foreign policy. I practically know how he would explain foreign policy effects worldwide by heart because of how often he discusses it in almost every debate - except this one apparently.

There are just too many candidates on the stage for a real policy debate. The best we can hope for here is to clarify positions.

Well, given the amount of questions and air-time the moderators gave Perry, Romney, and Bachmann, I think they would disagree.

At 9/7/2011 10:20:29 PM, LeoL wrote:Ron Paul, as smart as he is would scare off many mainstream voters with his views that the public rarely sees in politicians.

Anyway, if I was a Conservative, I would vote for Huntsman.

- Ron Paul has the most "crossover" appeal - he has many liberal and Democratic supporters, and of course many Republicans. Many independents too and people who say they were never interested in politics before until they checked him out. (Actually, I think most of his supporters never really cared about politics until he "woke them up.") In the general election, he'd own Obama. A large amount of current Paul supporters voted for Obama in '08 or were not by any means conservative or Republican.

- Ron Paul is as truly "conservative" as it can be. He's really closest to the Founding Fathers and I often see him as a modern day Thomas Jefferson. If you'd vote for Huntsman because of age or "electability", then while I might disagree with you, that's a different story. But if you think Huntsman is the better choice for a conservative based on principles and policies alone, I seriously beg to differ.

I watched the debate last night and I got to say I'm liking Jon Huntsman a lot more as my choice, who previously I did not care about.

From observing my parants watching the same debate, I think Santorum, Cain, and Bachman all apeal to them the same, and the most, so I think those three would have a better chance if 2 of them droped out and all of there supporters would rally behind the same person.

I think Perry is going to lose and should lose after watching the debate. the media is making a focus on Perry calling Social security a ponzie scheme, but I think the biggest thing that got him in the debate was when Ron Paul brought up his HIV related legislature. It was the one thing about Perry that all the other candidates had something negative to say about. Even Santorum blasted him saying he was offended someone who would pass that would call themselves a conservative.

Romney impressed me as a campaigner. all questions and attacks given to him he does pretty good at handling. I think he is best equipped to race against Obama because I do think whoever races against Obama it will be a close one, no matter how low a poll says his approval rating is.

But Jon Huntsman did that best at toting his credentials to be the next president better than the rest to me. He took Pery and Romney's sparring over who did jobs creation better to show his peak job record, he doesn't just have Governor on his resume but diplomat through 2 presidencies of both parties to china. and he speaks Mandarin and pointed out how good that would be if the president could go to china and talk to them in there language when talks need to take place.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

MSNBC should have given Ron Paul more questions. They are clearly biased against him. This brings me on to my other question.

Why did a liberal news station host a GOP debate? It really makes no sense. I was watching the aftermath and then what do you know...the wicked witch of the Liberals comes...Rachel Maddow. She starts coming on and bashing the contenders. I understand that this is inherent in liberals to do this, but right after a GOP debate with many Republican voters watching the station?

At 9/8/2011 11:49:53 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:MSNBC should have given Ron Paul more questions. They are clearly biased against him. This brings me on to my other question.

Why did a liberal news station host a GOP debate? It really makes no sense. I was watching the aftermath and then what do you know...the wicked witch of the Liberals comes...Rachel Maddow. She starts coming on and bashing the contenders. I understand that this is inherent in liberals to do this, but right after a GOP debate with many Republican voters watching the station?

Why make party distinctions this way in this statement? Are you implying that a Democratic party primary debate aired on FOX would not get the same treatment from the talking heads of that station?

Rebublicans, Independents and Democrats tuned in to watch the debate, when it ended, however, I believe you can safely assume that the analysis provided by the MSNBC talking heads was not primarily directed toward Republican viewer. The overwhelming majority of MSNBC watchers are liberal, and so it follows that those talking heads would scrutinize what was said at the debate through a liberal lens.

With the campaigning underway for both parties now, it is not inconceivable that Liberals as well as independents that don't watch FOX might be interested in knowing the policies of those competing for the Republican nomination. FOX has already sponsored a debate, and so has CNN. This debate in the only one sponsored by MSNBC, and there are several more, hosted by various media outlets (the majority are hosted by FOX, unsurprisingly).

I understand that you would prefer that groups stick with their own kind, so I suppose I can see how this nod to the existence of other political perspectives would be such a mystery to you, but those of us who believe that examining a wider range of viewpoints on a topic from can be enlightening are pleased to see it.